Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Introduction
2. Accidents in the U.S.
A. Introduction
B. Accidental Deaths and Disabling Injuries
C. Accident Costs
D. Tort Claims and Damage Awards
3. A Brief Historical Background of Tort Law
4. The Functions and Goals of Tort Law
A. Deterrence and Accident Prevention
B. Compensation
C. Avoidance of Undue Burdens on Economic Activities
D. Effective and Efficient Legal Process
E. Fairness
5. The Culpability Spectrum in Tort Law
A. Intended Harm: Intentional Torts
B. Unintended Harm
1) Strict Liability
2) Negligence
3) Reckless
6. The Coffee and Culpability Problems
A. The Willful Misconduct Problem
B. The Actual McDonalds Negligence Case
C. The No-Fault (Strict Liability) Problem
1) Strict Liability
2) Compensation Systems
7. The Tort Law Litigation Process
8. Overview of Personal Injury Damages
9. Vicarious Liability and Employer Responsibility
A. Introduction
B. Application of Vicarious Liability Principles
1) Employee or Independent Contractor
Kime v. Hobbs
2) Scope of Employment
Pyne v. Witmer
C. Vicarious Liability Problems
Chapter 2: Negligence Law: Breach of Duty
1. Overview of Negligence Law
A. Outline of the Elements of a Negligence Case
B. Overview of the Elements of a Negligence Case
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Duty
Breach of Duty
Causation (Cause-In-Fact)
Scope of Liability (Proximate Cause)
Damages
Wright v. Brown
I. Relationship of Statutory Standards to the Reasonable Care
II. The Role of Excuses
III. Negligence Per Se vs. Child Standard of Care
Bauman v. Crawford
Childproof Cap Problem
7. Proof of Negligence
A. Circumstantial Proof
Clark v. Kmart Corp.
B. Res Ipsa Loquitor
Byrne v. Boadle
Eaton v. Eaton
1) The Defendants Responsibility The Control Element
Ybarra v. Spangard
8. The Standard of Care in Professional Malpractice
A. Negligent Medical Performance
Smith v. Finch
B. The Doctrine of Informed Consent
Phillips v. Hull
Medical Malpractice Problem
C. Legal Malpractice and the Liability of Other Professionals
Smith v. Lewis
9. Putting Breach of Duty Analysis Together
Chapter 3: Duty
1. General Duty of Reasonable Care
Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co.
A.W. v. Lancaster County School District
2. Limited Duty Rules
A. Owners and Occupiers of Land
American Industries v. Ruvalcaba
Note on Child Visitors
Rowland v. Christian
B. Limited Duties to Act Affirmatively to Prevent Harm
i.
To Assist or Rescue
Yania v. Bigan
Farwell v. Keaton
No Duty To Assist Note
ii.
To Take Protective Measures Against Risks Posed by Third Parties
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
Dunkle v. Food Service East
iii.
ii.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2. Comparative Fault
- Where both a plaintiff and a defendant are at fault, they should share the responsibility
rather than have it fall entirely on one party or the other.
- Pure Comparative Fault: the negligent P recovers some damages from D no matter how
much at fault the P is. (Ex. If 98% negligent, he can recover 2% from D).
- Modified comparative fault approach: Ps recovery is barred if the Ps fault is greater
than the Ds or as great as the Ds.
- Doctrine of Avoidable consequences: After being harmed, P must take reasonable steps
to avoid exacerbating their injuries. Under this, D need not pay for any additional harm
that the P could have avoided.
Hoffman v. Jones
- court replaces contributory negligence with pure comparative fault
says it is most fair
- Dissent says that changing the law is for the legislature
Wassell v. Adams
- Court says rape victim was 97% at fault because she opened the door to
the rapist and let him come in and didnt run away when she had the
chance
- One way to make sense of comparative negligence is to assume that the
required comparison is between the respective costs to the plaintiff and
to the defendant of avoiding the injury.
3. Assumption of Risk
A. Express Assumption of Risk
- Express consent arises when one person gives explicit written or oral permission
to release another party from an obligation of reasonable case.
- The person signing the waiver is giving up more than the right to recover if
harmed by inherent risks; the person is giving up the right to recover for injuries
suffered as a result of the Ds unreasonable conduct.
- Waivers do not relieve defendant of liability for their reckless or intentional
wrongdoing.
B. Implied Assumption of Risk
- Inferred from a partys conduct and the circumstances
- Comprises three basic elements:
a.
Knowledge of the risk
b. Appreciation of the risk
c.
Voluntary exposure to the risk
Bowen v. Cochran
- guy lit his grill improperly even though he had been expressly instructed
not to do it that way grill explodes in his face